Unfortunately, although the timeline and presentation is complete and printed, I have left my digital copies on my hard-drive, a hard-drive I have left at university. As a result of this, the final timeline and presentation cannot be uploaded until tomorrow afternoon.
As an additional issue spawned from this forgetfulness I have been unable to write speaker notes for the presentation The best I can do now is know my own research inside and out and hopefully, present it well enough for the grade I wish to achieve.
NEXT POST: VIOLENCE IN GAMES: FINAL TIMELINE AND PRESENTATION
Tuesday, 16 April 2013
VIOLENCE IN GAMES: CHILLER OF THE ARCADE (1986)
The premise?
"Find ways to kill them victims quicker..."
"Find ways to kill them victims quicker..."
This quote sums up Chiller of The Arcade, released in 1986, instantly. Released originally in the arcade, then swiftly moving over to the NES, Chiller of the Arcade took the player through various classic horror film settings, letting players take control of the avatar - the murderer. The aim of the game game is simple, in each stage, find a way to kill the "helpless victims" using torture devices - again, a game focused entirely around murder with extreme violence. The image below gives a great impression of the game play.
 |
| CHILLER OF THE ARCADE - DUNGEON VIOLENCE GAMEPLAY |
Players earn points through finding creative ways to murder these helpless victims as quick as possible. Every action you take mutilates the victims in a clearly graphic and needless way. As discussed in previous posts, culture isn't kind to games that mindlessly use violence for progression and entertainment - Chiller of the Arcade does, much like Carmageddon and Manhunt 1 'and' 2.
For the time, Chiller of the Arcade had realistic graphics, it made use of its pixels completely allowing the game to represent violence and proportion as realistically as Carmageddon, only on a 2D. The issue, at this time, was that games were not rated 18, this would only come into play in the fifth generation. Because of this, many kids had a copy of this game and in result, controversy spared, with a quote stating "this games promotes he murder of innocent people, not enemies that can defend them self . And in that sense I agree, just as I do with the other mindlessly violent games I have researched.
To me, along with Andrews research on games like Manhunt and Grand Theft Auto, this solidifies our conclusion, and will form the basis of the timeline and presentation. Along with the angle I have highlighted, Andrew has also revealed some interesting aspects of violence in games. Aspects such as "Can violence be used to evoke emotions and drive story?" or "Do games influence gamers to commit crime?". With all of these angles, I personally believe both I and Andrew have conducted a thorough and conclusive research portfolio covering violence in games - we explored every angle we though necessary.
NEXT POST: ISSUES WITH WORK UPLOADING
VIOLENCE IN GAMES: SOLDIER OF FORTUNE (2000)
In the majority of the research I have carried out, violence in games was always existent because of three things, entertainment, culture, and conflict. As I move into modern times with modern digital games and violence, there has been a clear shift in how and why this violence is used along with how it is consumed and perceived - the clear culprit is evolution of culture. Carmageddon showed this with mindless violence for the sake of violence, and Manhunt (as seen in Andrew's blog) seemed to take weird pride in disturbing murders that the players committed - both of which caused serious controversies. This next game, Soldier of Fortune, didn't cause a controversy, but caused many heads to turn at the level of violence you could commit.
 |
| SOLDIER OF FORTUNE (2000) - CONTEXT SENSITIVE VIOLENCE |
Soldier of Fortune, originally released in 2000 on PC, is a first person shooter that pushes mutilation and context sensitive damage as a USP using the "GHOUL Damage Model engine developed by Raven Software" that "enabled the depiction of extreme graphic violence" - the developers and publishers of Soldier of Fortune 1 and 2. Although praised for it's character and entertaining game play and damage mechanics, in 2000 after it's release, the controversy began - Soldier of Fortune was rated specifically an "Adult Motion Picture", in other words, it was labelled as "Pornography".
It sounds crazy, but the level of detail the engine facilitated was unheard of before this release. Players could take a knife, and literally cut away into the corpses, revealing more and more organs. This completely optionally mechanic served no real purpose, arming players with a knife for the sole purpose of causing bodily mutilation This extreme take on violence, although entertaining on the most part, was clearly controversial, but it's important to note that it is completely optional. Players could turn the violence off, revealing the solid first person game play experience that it was praised for.
In a sense, Soldier of Fortune is a coin of two sides. One one side, you have a violent game that really has no need for it, where as on the other side, you have a great first person shooter with a solid story, that has no violence or at least optional. So it seems violence isn't 'always' a terrible thing, but became of this games positives, it highlights the issues of violence in video games with a a bright light - mindless violence is what causes the controversy, not violence itself. Maybe it gives off a bad message? That's not to say it makes people commit murder.
Personally, I played the game and loved it when it was released, but I was shocked by the violence and have never looked at games the same way again. In fact, when I first played it, I was disturbed when I first shot an enemy with a shotgun and saw the limbs detach, revealing bones and organs. Yes, it gave the game it's character, and yes, I will always remember it for the violence, but I don't believe the violence was used in a despicable manner like Carmageddon or Manhunt did. It's all about how you use it in a stern modern society. Again, it is society that is the factor, after all, it is just a game, one of which was rated for adults, not children - parents chose to buy it for them.
This game isn't the most well known violent game in the short history of video games, but to me, it's been the most important as of yet, as it's positives highlight the negatives and causes for controversy for not just this game, but for all the previous games I have researched. I guess this is the research almost done when you consider the work Andrew has done. We have highlighted a pattern, researched the deeper factors behind it, and pinpointed the causes. Now all that is left, is to solidify these conclusions and complete the timeline and presentation to exhibit our findings.
NEXT POST: VIOLENCE IN GAMES: CHILLER OF THE ARCADE (1986)
It sounds crazy, but the level of detail the engine facilitated was unheard of before this release. Players could take a knife, and literally cut away into the corpses, revealing more and more organs. This completely optionally mechanic served no real purpose, arming players with a knife for the sole purpose of causing bodily mutilation This extreme take on violence, although entertaining on the most part, was clearly controversial, but it's important to note that it is completely optional. Players could turn the violence off, revealing the solid first person game play experience that it was praised for.
In a sense, Soldier of Fortune is a coin of two sides. One one side, you have a violent game that really has no need for it, where as on the other side, you have a great first person shooter with a solid story, that has no violence or at least optional. So it seems violence isn't 'always' a terrible thing, but became of this games positives, it highlights the issues of violence in video games with a a bright light - mindless violence is what causes the controversy, not violence itself. Maybe it gives off a bad message? That's not to say it makes people commit murder.
Personally, I played the game and loved it when it was released, but I was shocked by the violence and have never looked at games the same way again. In fact, when I first played it, I was disturbed when I first shot an enemy with a shotgun and saw the limbs detach, revealing bones and organs. Yes, it gave the game it's character, and yes, I will always remember it for the violence, but I don't believe the violence was used in a despicable manner like Carmageddon or Manhunt did. It's all about how you use it in a stern modern society. Again, it is society that is the factor, after all, it is just a game, one of which was rated for adults, not children - parents chose to buy it for them.
This game isn't the most well known violent game in the short history of video games, but to me, it's been the most important as of yet, as it's positives highlight the negatives and causes for controversy for not just this game, but for all the previous games I have researched. I guess this is the research almost done when you consider the work Andrew has done. We have highlighted a pattern, researched the deeper factors behind it, and pinpointed the causes. Now all that is left, is to solidify these conclusions and complete the timeline and presentation to exhibit our findings.
NEXT POST: VIOLENCE IN GAMES: CHILLER OF THE ARCADE (1986)
VIOLENCE IN GAMES: CARMAGEDDON (1997)
When the fifth generation of gaming consoles hit the market, the 1994 console release Playstation 1 promised better graphics, better game play and far greater immersion. In most cases, the Playstation proved successful, but it was soon apparent that this creative freedom could be utilized for something different that had never been done before - realistic violence.
I personally remember opening up a gaming magazine to read in depth about SCI's new IP, Carmageddon - what Mail Online calls;
It seemed fun and fresh, but at such a young age, it actually disturbed me, because Camageddon's concept and game play revolved entirely around one thing - murder by reckless driving. Instantly this gives off all kinds of wrong messages to children, and considering it was my first look at violence in anything, It's safe to say it had a negative impact on me.
Here's the premise - players race against other opponents whilst battling against a timer. The only way to beat the timer, is to run over pedestrians violently to earn time bonuses. The ability to commit such mindless violent acts is no surprise when you consider the Vikings and various other cultures did the exact same thing ages ago, but regardless, controversy stuck hard considering the new platform and potentially exposed audience.
In a culture where murder is illegal, the death penalty is banished and pretty much any negative action is looked down upon, Armageddon was an in your face reminder that this type of violence isn't welcome anymore (unlike in the Roman rule). Along with this dismissal and controversy over this extremely graphic virtual violence, the platform posed issues also - children could join in on the violence (virtual violence of course). But considering I was effected greatly by it (I cried), it's easy to see how such easy exposure to violence is controversial, raising many questions as to where and what games should be and go. In fact, this game was so violent for the time, it was the first game to be refused an ERSB rating - it was too violent.
Carmageddon was one of the first real controversies in gaming, as this experience was a more immersive than it's arcade counterparts such as Death Race (similar concept), as they were just concepts backed by 8-bit graphics, Carmageddon was a concept executed through fully 3D models of violence - violence which dominated the entire screen and game. It was seen as 'entertainment' to commit such blind acts of virtual violence. It not only spread the message that violence was entertaining and rewarding, but it glorified it and promoted reckless driving to potential innocent children. The latter point is the key point in this controversy, and still is today.
SCI eventually re-cut the game, replacing "pedestrians with zombies" to justify the violence, but in an open statement, SCI admitted that "the violence and controversy was deliberately courted" - this says it all really.
Now, there are many sides to this argument that exist even today. But Camrageddon was admittedly one of those games that went to far too soon. What I find interesting about this game however, is it's sheer contrast (and similarities) to the previous research I have carried out. Carmageddon was a game that used violence for no other reason than to have violence. And when children could be exposed to such things and a culture that is radically different that for example, the Roman Empire, you have a game that allowed people to commit acts of violence with no punishment, only reward. This is the difference between then and now. Back in ancient times, violence may have been more common in society as a whole, but when used for entertainment, it was mostly controlled, usually backed by cultural praxis or military conflict. Here, it's mindless and dangerous.
From this point, if you take a look at Andrew's blog, you will see that this pattern in a revised modern society continue to make itself known, bringing along many controversial stories along with it. Games such as Manhunt and Grand Theft Auto stimulate the same arguments from different angles, and I think this is entirely down to the platform, modern society, and the use of violence in this accessible media.
It's surprising to say, that even with this controversy that still makes itself known today, Camrageddon is actually being remade as a result of a die hard community kickstarter, again, spawning further controversy. Carmageddon was a lesson to all developers when it came to violence in games, but violence in games has never held back, the way it is used however, has changed.
NEXT POST: VIOLENCE IN GAMES: SOLIDER OF FORTUNE (2000)
 |
| CARMAGEDDON - VIOLENT GAMEPLAY |
I personally remember opening up a gaming magazine to read in depth about SCI's new IP, Carmageddon - what Mail Online calls;
"The most controversial game of all time".
Here's the premise - players race against other opponents whilst battling against a timer. The only way to beat the timer, is to run over pedestrians violently to earn time bonuses. The ability to commit such mindless violent acts is no surprise when you consider the Vikings and various other cultures did the exact same thing ages ago, but regardless, controversy stuck hard considering the new platform and potentially exposed audience.
In a culture where murder is illegal, the death penalty is banished and pretty much any negative action is looked down upon, Armageddon was an in your face reminder that this type of violence isn't welcome anymore (unlike in the Roman rule). Along with this dismissal and controversy over this extremely graphic virtual violence, the platform posed issues also - children could join in on the violence (virtual violence of course). But considering I was effected greatly by it (I cried), it's easy to see how such easy exposure to violence is controversial, raising many questions as to where and what games should be and go. In fact, this game was so violent for the time, it was the first game to be refused an ERSB rating - it was too violent.
Carmageddon was one of the first real controversies in gaming, as this experience was a more immersive than it's arcade counterparts such as Death Race (similar concept), as they were just concepts backed by 8-bit graphics, Carmageddon was a concept executed through fully 3D models of violence - violence which dominated the entire screen and game. It was seen as 'entertainment' to commit such blind acts of virtual violence. It not only spread the message that violence was entertaining and rewarding, but it glorified it and promoted reckless driving to potential innocent children. The latter point is the key point in this controversy, and still is today.
SCI eventually re-cut the game, replacing "pedestrians with zombies" to justify the violence, but in an open statement, SCI admitted that "the violence and controversy was deliberately courted" - this says it all really.
Now, there are many sides to this argument that exist even today. But Camrageddon was admittedly one of those games that went to far too soon. What I find interesting about this game however, is it's sheer contrast (and similarities) to the previous research I have carried out. Carmageddon was a game that used violence for no other reason than to have violence. And when children could be exposed to such things and a culture that is radically different that for example, the Roman Empire, you have a game that allowed people to commit acts of violence with no punishment, only reward. This is the difference between then and now. Back in ancient times, violence may have been more common in society as a whole, but when used for entertainment, it was mostly controlled, usually backed by cultural praxis or military conflict. Here, it's mindless and dangerous.
From this point, if you take a look at Andrew's blog, you will see that this pattern in a revised modern society continue to make itself known, bringing along many controversial stories along with it. Games such as Manhunt and Grand Theft Auto stimulate the same arguments from different angles, and I think this is entirely down to the platform, modern society, and the use of violence in this accessible media.
It's surprising to say, that even with this controversy that still makes itself known today, Camrageddon is actually being remade as a result of a die hard community kickstarter, again, spawning further controversy. Carmageddon was a lesson to all developers when it came to violence in games, but violence in games has never held back, the way it is used however, has changed.
NEXT POST: VIOLENCE IN GAMES: SOLIDER OF FORTUNE (2000)
Sunday, 14 April 2013
VIOLENCE IN GAMES: TIMELINE TEMPLATE
After completing the majority of my research (the rest to be carried out tomorrow), highlighting patterns and key aspects of violence in games, I decided to make a start on the timeline that will work in co-operation with the presentation that both me and Andrew are to give on Wednesday the 17th of April.
The original idea was to present the timeline adopting a 'crime board' theme, as discussed in a previous post of mine. However, whilst attempting to develop that idea on Photoshop, it seemed boring - I guess it sounded better on paper. So I decided to scrap that idea on the most part and blend it with another visual style. Some aspects still remain, such as the pins, the notes and pretty much the whole practical theme, but I blended it with a nice digital layout that I think looks much better.
The original idea was to present the timeline adopting a 'crime board' theme, as discussed in a previous post of mine. However, whilst attempting to develop that idea on Photoshop, it seemed boring - I guess it sounded better on paper. So I decided to scrap that idea on the most part and blend it with another visual style. Some aspects still remain, such as the pins, the notes and pretty much the whole practical theme, but I blended it with a nice digital layout that I think looks much better.
It doesn't look too flashy small, so open the image in another tab to see it at it's nearly full quality!
 |
| VIOLENCE IN GAMES: TIMELINE TEMPLATE by Christian Whelan |
I must note, that this is just a template, ready to have the information thrown in there - it is not a finished idea. The idea is to have the concept above, with a little more information in there, and I mean a little. Such information types such as quotes and buzzwords will be added in where necessary, to make the timeline a little more readable, a at the moment, it's just pictures and dates, which is a timeline for sure, but not a very interesting one.
Although a low resolution when you look at it, the timeline is actually A4 in height and 5 times A4 in width, so it's quiet a lengthy timeline. I may need more space, but me and Andrew will try our best to compile all the information onto this template.
Although a low resolution when you look at it, the timeline is actually A4 in height and 5 times A4 in width, so it's quiet a lengthy timeline. I may need more space, but me and Andrew will try our best to compile all the information onto this template.
Anyway, I think Andrew will like it, so once I get approval, we'll compile the research, put it into the timeline, and by tomorrow night, it should be finished along with the research and coupling presentation.
NEXT POST: VIOLENCE IN GAMES: CARMAGEDDON (1997)
Saturday, 13 April 2013
VIOLENCE IN GAMES: VIDEO GAMES TO RESEARCH
As I gear up to analyzing violence in modern games, I've made a note of what key games I should research. They need to be varied, highlight issues, facilitate conclusions and most importantly, support the evidence and research I've found. However, I do hope that these games offer more questions, as that will only develop my knowledge on the subject and ensure my research is informed and valid.
I hope to draw solid conclusions from these and the previous games that contain violence, but to be honest I think although I will, it will still mostly be opinions facilitated by research and evidence. Violence in games is a controversial topic that has many sides, but no solid evidence to solidify any argument as the definitive answer.
NEXT POST: VIOLENCE IN GAMES: TIMELINE TEMPLATE
- MANHUNT
- GRAND THEFT AUTO
- CALL OF DUTY: MODERN WARFARE 2
- MORTAL KOMBAT (PAST AND PRESENT)
- SOLDIER OF FORTUNE 1 / 2
- KARMAGEDDON
I hope to draw solid conclusions from these and the previous games that contain violence, but to be honest I think although I will, it will still mostly be opinions facilitated by research and evidence. Violence in games is a controversial topic that has many sides, but no solid evidence to solidify any argument as the definitive answer.
NEXT POST: VIOLENCE IN GAMES: TIMELINE TEMPLATE
VIOLENCE IN GAMES: IGN VIOLENCE ARTICLES
Even when not researching for this project, I'm coming across really notable and interesting articles and videos on modern video game violence. Articles that discuss contemplate and highlight conclusions on violence in games - articles that can only benefit my research.
Most recently, IGN posted two articles discussing violence in games, which is a statement in itself about how controversial and popular the topic in question is. Both focus on Senator Feinstein's views, but it draws a nice contrast between the leaders and official's views of violence in ancient times to now, pointing at culture and morality being the primary cause of our different views of violence in games and culture.
Senator Feinstein has never been known to appreciate violence in games, or any form of violence or crime in fact, she shows some real dedication to the concerns of such a topic with it;s relation to crime, or gun crime more importantly, so her opinions are really valid in this research task.
In the first article discusses her opinion that there is a clear connection between violence in games to violence in reality (found in the article link below).
She states, “I think the really violent video game becomes a kind of simulator to practice on,” she said. “It enables the individual to become much more familiar with that depiction of death and blood. Of course it's not the way it is in real life.”. It's a completely valid point, some games like Flashpoint can really offer such realistic 'training;' combat simulator experiences, but as she says, it doesn't make them an expert. However, what this doesn't prove however, is that violence in games can directly influence a player's decision to actually take action and commit murder or violence against innocent people. That is surely all down to psychology and the psychology of that individual which can lead to many topics such as childhood upbringing social encounters and experiences and much more. Which is fitting, because she then goes on to say that games have a "very negative influence on children". I understand this point, 20 years ago, games were unrealistic representation of conflict and violence, now, games are so realistic they could be considered life simulators - simulators that offer clear violence as a rewarding alternative. Whether or not this is the intention of game developers is not definite. Maybe violence in games is just a form of entertainment as it always has been, and it's modern society and it's pressures that has spawned such recent horrible and controversial crimes. Either way, it is something developers should take into account.
I shall research more into this when looking at violence in modern games, both controversial and common games.
The second article again, covers Feinstein's views on violence in games. This time, in relation to the recent shootings in America.
NEXT POST: VIOLENCE IN VIDEO GAMES: VIDEO GAMES TO RESEARCH
Most recently, IGN posted two articles discussing violence in games, which is a statement in itself about how controversial and popular the topic in question is. Both focus on Senator Feinstein's views, but it draws a nice contrast between the leaders and official's views of violence in ancient times to now, pointing at culture and morality being the primary cause of our different views of violence in games and culture.
 |
| SENATOR FEINSTEIN ON GUN CRIME |
Senator Feinstein has never been known to appreciate violence in games, or any form of violence or crime in fact, she shows some real dedication to the concerns of such a topic with it;s relation to crime, or gun crime more importantly, so her opinions are really valid in this research task.
In the first article discusses her opinion that there is a clear connection between violence in games to violence in reality (found in the article link below).
I shall research more into this when looking at violence in modern games, both controversial and common games.
The second article again, covers Feinstein's views on violence in games. This time, in relation to the recent shootings in America.
She believes that games have “a very negative role for young people, and the industry ought to take note of that.” She went on to say, "If Sandy Hook doesn't do it, if the knowledge of these video games this young man played doesn't, then maybe we have to proceed, but that is in the future.”
This comment is supposedly supported by the vague link that Sandy Hook was an avid gamer. It could be circumstantial, or it may be the sole cause. I guess this is a discussion that is still yet to conclude - I can only give my 'opinion' based on the research I can find. I for one, do not believe this is entirely the case, as discussed in the last post. But one thing that is for certain, is that in today's culture with today's tragic events, developers need to evaluate how violence is used in gaming - not that all developers use it wrongly.
I think the validity of such comments can only be established once I look at further studies on violence and violence in games. In fact, I recently found a little biological study that could facilitate some of these comments whilst also dismissing them. Violent game's don't 'create' murders, they stimulate them and 'could reinforce there decisions.
NEXT POST: VIOLENCE IN VIDEO GAMES: VIDEO GAMES TO RESEARCH
VIOLENCE IN GAMES: THE EFFECT OF VIOLENCE IN GAMES AND IT'S CONTROVERSIES
There are many effects gaming can induce on society, some positive and some negative, but as many arguments as there are, the main argument that arises whenever games are discussed in depth is violence in games, and whether or not they influence the violence of gamers across the world. If a child plays a violent game, does the gamer become violent? It’s a question that both sides can provide evidence for in support to their beliefs. Some people say gamers can be made into murderers through games that allow gamers to practice murder (Grand Theft Auto being the most common controversial example), where as some people believe those murderers are murderers from birth, it’s just the frustration games sometimes induce that pushes them over the limit. Some people actually believe and have evidence that games have the opposite effect on gamers, that games have a positive effect. There are two pieces of evidence, (of which by no means are the only pieces of evidence), that support each side. A recent article on a study on the Telegraph website and a crime story on a well respected business and crime website Prvada.net
As discussed, gaming has long had a bad reputation to influence negative effects on gamers, whether violence, depression or addiction. But what hasn’t been so widely promoted is that gaming has been said to produce positive effects on gamers, a recent article on the telegraph supports this claim. Games such as Manhunt (banned twice in multiple countries) and Grand Theft Auto (victim to potential banning) where gamers are rewarded in game cash for killing or attacking victims, are consistently blamed for a steady rise in violent crime. This is mainly because many murder cases have evidence that games such as the above mentioned, were “to blame” for the killings. However the article on the Telegraph Website mentions a report, named “Understanding the Effects of Violent Video Games on Violent Crime” by respected academics has stated they do not believe there is a link.
The report above was released earlier this year, and states: "Psychological studies invariably find a positive relationship between violent video game play and aggression. To date, though there is evidence that violent video games cause aggression in a laboratory setting, there is no evidence that violent video games cause violence or crime."
So really there is no evidence in any case, that games can directly cause violence in a real world setting. They are taking aggression in a laboratory setting, exaggerating it, applying it and linking it directly to the few extreme cases reported. So it could merely just be coincidence. The report continues to add, “...laboratory studies may be poor predictors of the net effects of violent video games in society. Consequently, they overstate the importance of video game induced aggression as a social cost”. This statement does make sense, as there are millions if not billions of gamers out there; the majority of them do get frustrated however only the select few go to the extreme. Therefore there really isn't enough evidence to directly accuse violent games of causing the violent acts the select few do commit. For some reason, they assume a game causes aggression, then the gamer gets up, walks outside and then has a fight, when the article has evidence that actually states, “rather than violent crime rates soaring when new violent video games are released, they actually drop as gamers are 'too busy' at home playing the games” adding, "Time spent gaming cannot be spent on other activities, both legitimate activities and illicit violent activities.". This doesn't necessarily disprove the opposing side’s theories, but it does make sense on some scale. It cannot disprove that games make people more passively violent, violent enough to commit a crime on society, whether murder or stealing a chocolate bar. The article continues with, "Many researchers have argued that these games may also have caused extreme violence, such as school shootings, because laboratory evidence has found an abundance of evidence linking gameplay to aggression.” Yet although we can agree that there is a link between gaming and aggression the article also states, "Yet few studies before this one had examined the impact of these games on crime”, this is interesting, as this is what everybody generalizes the term “Video Game Violence” to, they assume games cause crime, even though no evidence shows this besides the odd few extreme cases of psychologically ill people ‘finally’ snapping.
In my personal opinion, games themselves have both a negative and positive effect. Yes it is true people get aggressive on games, I myself have experienced and witnessed this, but along with this there is the happiness and positive effects they have on you. When you’re not angry you’re being rewarded, which makes you happy and in turn, less violent. Haters seem to forget that polar emotion. I know many people and many forums that suggest being aggressive in a game a great way of venting stress rather than inducing it upon the gamer.
The article finally finishes by taking into account gamers spending more time on the game than committing crime and lack of evidence by concluding with;
"Overall, violent video games lead to decreases in violent crime."
But let’s be honest, even though I can refuse games directly cause violence and crime, you cannot ignore the extreme cases. That is in the end why the argument has risen. So let’s take a recent tragic story into account of a young boy who spontaneously killed his father. The article states “after first killing his sleeping father with a sledge hammer and then waking his mother and demanding that she return the keyboard that she had taken away from him. After committing the murder he calmly went and finished playing his favorite computer game Gothic.” It is an extreme story where such a young soul could commit such an instant disturbing crime. It is admittedly unnatural, and the game was the center of the cause, but we must remember this is a child that doesn't really know the difference between right and wrong, but was also too naive to understand such a violent crime as murder. Did the game teach him to murder? Did his naivety understand this in game violence and acceptable? The issue is you cannot generalize a naive kid not understanding the difference between right and wrong as the truth about gaming. Yes the game ’may’ have taught him about violence, and he ‘may’ of absorbed the violence as acceptable, but developers moderate and rate these games so that children cannot get their hand on these violent games. It is up to the parents of the child to protect their kids from such graphic content. Developers may deny the direct link to the games and violence, but they do not deny children can be influenced by it, so such a case really should become redundant, as it cannot be generalized to the worldwide pubic. To add the parent antagonized him angering him further, although I admit this still doesn't justify the murder, the game didn't play a part, but multiple factors also did, therefore the games cannot be directly and solely blamed. Therefore we must take another case into account.
AllAboutTheGame.co.uk has a recent article on a grown man committing murder ‘allegedly’ because of a game. The gamer of which was the fan favorite Call Of Duty, a game violent in nature but not as graphic as the kings of violence such as Manhunt and Grand Theft Auto. The man was playing the game with his flat mate in his apartment when “tensions escalated and they got into a fight”, the fight itself ended with “Johnson shooting Taylor in the back of the head.”. So here we have a grown man, clearly fully integrated into society, so surely a psychological sound man wouldn't kill his friend without some influence?
No other evidence was provided, so all that we have was a man who was playing a game for “fun” with his friend and the ordeal ending with his friend dead with multiple shots to the head. Johnson is now on trial for first degree murder. So we have two factors, the murdered, the friend and the game. At first glance you would defiantly blame the game for the violence, as that was the topic of the fight. If ever there was a case that could prove the link between violence and video games this is it. However thousands of people play against each other on games much like if not worse than Call of Duty every day and every night, sometimes when drunk or after a previous argument, yet they don’t commit murder. So you need to look deeper. Firstly this man actually had a gun, so he was clearly capable of such a crime in the first place, he could have intended on harming somebody in the first place. Secondly the friend was arguing with him to, so clearly it was the argument that escalated the violence in the apartment. So once again even though the case suggests the link it existent, the evidence and details of it suggest otherwise. I guess violence in video games is an argument that will never be solved. I do not believe violence is linked to games, but I can see why people would make such a generalization after all it makes sense at first glance like I said. But I can also see the other side of the argument that many people share with me.
A point I wish to add is that when gamers show aggression it is because they have failed in completing the goal of the game. This is true for all genres, even the games that are not violent; it’s a natural human reaction to reflect negative emotions when we experience failure. It isn't the violence within the game itself that causes the aggression, which is a general assumption of many haters. However some people may disagree with me, stating that because the violence in games is rewarded, the gamers naturally associate violence with positive connotations, therefore they do not see violence as a negative action. However to think that an everyday person could forget the difference between right and wrong in such an extreme case from just paying one videogame is absurd. From cases mentioned in this argument, the people who forget such a difference are clearly psychological unstable or have some issues.
My personal opinion is, all gamers get frustrated by games at some point, it is in the design to reward and punish the player at equal levels to create an immersive entertaining experience no other medium can. Games aim to draw emotion out of the gamer in order to immerse them in the only medium that they can control the outcome of. However although it is in fact true that all gamers can get frustrated, that is not to say all gamers immediately go outside and commit murder and crime. The cases shown clearly show there is an issue with the gamer rather than the game. I truly believe it’s because only the negative effects and extreme cases are revealed to the public rather than the positive effects gaming can have that creates the generalization of violence in video games, therefore the haters try their best to generalize slight aggression in a laboratory to extreme cases of murder in an uncontrolled environment, there’s to little evidence to suggest such a direct link and cause. I admit gaming may cause aggression or frustration, but it is in the mind and heart of the gamers to hold them self back and distinguish between right and wrong; they control the game, they control themselves. It’s the people with some form of medical or social imbalance that cause the violence and give a bad name to games in terms of violence. I personally believe taking the opinions and evidence on board; that the violence is in the gamer playing the game rather game being played by the gamer.
Like I said games provide an experience that immerse emotionally. Yes they can cause aggression, but they can also cause, laughter, tears and maybe even paranoia (after effect of horror games). Which brings me onto the next argument, can games cause people to lose track of reality? Can gamers being to see a blur in the line between virtual reality and reality? How bad is Video game Addiction? Evidence suggests it is very bad, and although I do not believe games are bad, I believe without moderation they can have negative effects. However unlike violence in games, over immersion within games can only be moderated by the gamer, therefore if a gamer has an addictive personality, or other underlying issues, they can in fact feel the negative effects games present. This is a matter I definitely agree with and believe exists, as I have seen it myself. Such underlying issues can really effect a gamer. The resulting effects of such a negative are that the gamer may find it hard to re enter society, they may become social recluses. They may become addicted to the game, therefore lose track of time and life outside of their computer screen without even noticing as they are too busy enjoying themselves but literally loosing themselves within the game. They may become depressed as real life isn’t as stimulating as the virtual reality. These are all issues that can present themselves through the game. After all games are in some cases more exciting than life, hence why they were created, just like Movies (which have had their share of controversy and blame for violence). But like I said the risk are there, but it’s up the gamer to address those risks rather than fall to them. A disturbing but fascinating story that highlights these ever-present risks is a story on IGN.com not a month ago of a neglecting gaming mother.
In Taiwan, a young single mother of a 3 month old baby boy was an avid fan of a online gaming society, of which one of the game mechanics was looking after a virtual child; feeding it at the appropriate times, bathing it etc. The mother became so addicted to this game, that she neglected her actual child for 2 weeks. The child died of starvation and thirst; the mother of which only realized her child had died 3 days later. She claimed her reasons for neglecting where that “she needed to feed her child online”. It’s this kind of gross negligence that spawns such arguments. Indeed the game itself did indirectly play a part in the child’s death; however the mother’s sheer lack of responsibility, courtesy and emotion within the situation clearly shows she has psychological issues (maybe post natal depression) and wasn't fit to look after her child. It was her direct negligence of her child and psychological instability that caused the death of her child, not the game itself. It was never designed to facilitate the death of children, rather to provide the experience of looking after a child. The games intentions where positive, where as the mothers where not, however still people believe a story like this proves games have extremely negative effects on society and the people who play them, they believe if it wasn't for the games addictive attributes the mother would never have become so neglecting.
Once again a seemingly perfect way to blame games on a negative effect on society has fallen to other explanations, I do agree games present the risks above, but it’s the gamer who controls the game that controls themselves, not the game controlling them. This woman along with other clearly had issue before they started playing the game; it’s just the risks the game presents that highlighted her issues.
There are many other stories, even a documentary called “My World in Warcraft” documents addicted gamers who play the MMORPG “World of Warcraft” and their individual stories of how they lost all of their friends and family to online gaming addiction. Some cases the gamers lose their jobs, in some extreme cases they ended up in hospital from exhaustion. In fact one gamer even died from lack of food and drink. This is the extremities game addiction can cause, therefore they clearly exist. There are reports of over 3 Millions addicted gamers worldwide; it just goes to show the extent it can affect society. So yes, games can have a negative effect on society, not enough to be noticeable by everyone, but for those caught in the gaming addiction trap, it’s completely noticeable. It’s a sad but true statistic that highlights the risks of gaming. I still passionately believe that it is still down to the gamer. Yes life isn't as fun as a game, but you can still put the controller down and enjoy the little things in life, you just need to get up, go out and find them, which brings us to the positives’ of gaming on society.
It is ‘possible’ games can cause violence directly or indirectly. It is ‘possible’ that games can cause addiction and loosing track of reality, but it is ‘proven’ that games can bring together society and even educate. Comparing the possible to the proven, I would say gaming has a positive effect on society rather than negative.
NEXT POST: VIOLENCE IN GAMES: IGN VIOLENCE ARTICLE
As discussed, gaming has long had a bad reputation to influence negative effects on gamers, whether violence, depression or addiction. But what hasn’t been so widely promoted is that gaming has been said to produce positive effects on gamers, a recent article on the telegraph supports this claim. Games such as Manhunt (banned twice in multiple countries) and Grand Theft Auto (victim to potential banning) where gamers are rewarded in game cash for killing or attacking victims, are consistently blamed for a steady rise in violent crime. This is mainly because many murder cases have evidence that games such as the above mentioned, were “to blame” for the killings. However the article on the Telegraph Website mentions a report, named “Understanding the Effects of Violent Video Games on Violent Crime” by respected academics has stated they do not believe there is a link.
So really there is no evidence in any case, that games can directly cause violence in a real world setting. They are taking aggression in a laboratory setting, exaggerating it, applying it and linking it directly to the few extreme cases reported. So it could merely just be coincidence. The report continues to add, “...laboratory studies may be poor predictors of the net effects of violent video games in society. Consequently, they overstate the importance of video game induced aggression as a social cost”. This statement does make sense, as there are millions if not billions of gamers out there; the majority of them do get frustrated however only the select few go to the extreme. Therefore there really isn't enough evidence to directly accuse violent games of causing the violent acts the select few do commit. For some reason, they assume a game causes aggression, then the gamer gets up, walks outside and then has a fight, when the article has evidence that actually states, “rather than violent crime rates soaring when new violent video games are released, they actually drop as gamers are 'too busy' at home playing the games” adding, "Time spent gaming cannot be spent on other activities, both legitimate activities and illicit violent activities.". This doesn't necessarily disprove the opposing side’s theories, but it does make sense on some scale. It cannot disprove that games make people more passively violent, violent enough to commit a crime on society, whether murder or stealing a chocolate bar. The article continues with, "Many researchers have argued that these games may also have caused extreme violence, such as school shootings, because laboratory evidence has found an abundance of evidence linking gameplay to aggression.” Yet although we can agree that there is a link between gaming and aggression the article also states, "Yet few studies before this one had examined the impact of these games on crime”, this is interesting, as this is what everybody generalizes the term “Video Game Violence” to, they assume games cause crime, even though no evidence shows this besides the odd few extreme cases of psychologically ill people ‘finally’ snapping.
In my personal opinion, games themselves have both a negative and positive effect. Yes it is true people get aggressive on games, I myself have experienced and witnessed this, but along with this there is the happiness and positive effects they have on you. When you’re not angry you’re being rewarded, which makes you happy and in turn, less violent. Haters seem to forget that polar emotion. I know many people and many forums that suggest being aggressive in a game a great way of venting stress rather than inducing it upon the gamer.
The article finally finishes by taking into account gamers spending more time on the game than committing crime and lack of evidence by concluding with;
"Overall, violent video games lead to decreases in violent crime."
AllAboutTheGame.co.uk has a recent article on a grown man committing murder ‘allegedly’ because of a game. The gamer of which was the fan favorite Call Of Duty, a game violent in nature but not as graphic as the kings of violence such as Manhunt and Grand Theft Auto. The man was playing the game with his flat mate in his apartment when “tensions escalated and they got into a fight”, the fight itself ended with “Johnson shooting Taylor in the back of the head.”. So here we have a grown man, clearly fully integrated into society, so surely a psychological sound man wouldn't kill his friend without some influence?
A point I wish to add is that when gamers show aggression it is because they have failed in completing the goal of the game. This is true for all genres, even the games that are not violent; it’s a natural human reaction to reflect negative emotions when we experience failure. It isn't the violence within the game itself that causes the aggression, which is a general assumption of many haters. However some people may disagree with me, stating that because the violence in games is rewarded, the gamers naturally associate violence with positive connotations, therefore they do not see violence as a negative action. However to think that an everyday person could forget the difference between right and wrong in such an extreme case from just paying one videogame is absurd. From cases mentioned in this argument, the people who forget such a difference are clearly psychological unstable or have some issues.
My personal opinion is, all gamers get frustrated by games at some point, it is in the design to reward and punish the player at equal levels to create an immersive entertaining experience no other medium can. Games aim to draw emotion out of the gamer in order to immerse them in the only medium that they can control the outcome of. However although it is in fact true that all gamers can get frustrated, that is not to say all gamers immediately go outside and commit murder and crime. The cases shown clearly show there is an issue with the gamer rather than the game. I truly believe it’s because only the negative effects and extreme cases are revealed to the public rather than the positive effects gaming can have that creates the generalization of violence in video games, therefore the haters try their best to generalize slight aggression in a laboratory to extreme cases of murder in an uncontrolled environment, there’s to little evidence to suggest such a direct link and cause. I admit gaming may cause aggression or frustration, but it is in the mind and heart of the gamers to hold them self back and distinguish between right and wrong; they control the game, they control themselves. It’s the people with some form of medical or social imbalance that cause the violence and give a bad name to games in terms of violence. I personally believe taking the opinions and evidence on board; that the violence is in the gamer playing the game rather game being played by the gamer.
Like I said games provide an experience that immerse emotionally. Yes they can cause aggression, but they can also cause, laughter, tears and maybe even paranoia (after effect of horror games). Which brings me onto the next argument, can games cause people to lose track of reality? Can gamers being to see a blur in the line between virtual reality and reality? How bad is Video game Addiction? Evidence suggests it is very bad, and although I do not believe games are bad, I believe without moderation they can have negative effects. However unlike violence in games, over immersion within games can only be moderated by the gamer, therefore if a gamer has an addictive personality, or other underlying issues, they can in fact feel the negative effects games present. This is a matter I definitely agree with and believe exists, as I have seen it myself. Such underlying issues can really effect a gamer. The resulting effects of such a negative are that the gamer may find it hard to re enter society, they may become social recluses. They may become addicted to the game, therefore lose track of time and life outside of their computer screen without even noticing as they are too busy enjoying themselves but literally loosing themselves within the game. They may become depressed as real life isn’t as stimulating as the virtual reality. These are all issues that can present themselves through the game. After all games are in some cases more exciting than life, hence why they were created, just like Movies (which have had their share of controversy and blame for violence). But like I said the risk are there, but it’s up the gamer to address those risks rather than fall to them. A disturbing but fascinating story that highlights these ever-present risks is a story on IGN.com not a month ago of a neglecting gaming mother.
In Taiwan, a young single mother of a 3 month old baby boy was an avid fan of a online gaming society, of which one of the game mechanics was looking after a virtual child; feeding it at the appropriate times, bathing it etc. The mother became so addicted to this game, that she neglected her actual child for 2 weeks. The child died of starvation and thirst; the mother of which only realized her child had died 3 days later. She claimed her reasons for neglecting where that “she needed to feed her child online”. It’s this kind of gross negligence that spawns such arguments. Indeed the game itself did indirectly play a part in the child’s death; however the mother’s sheer lack of responsibility, courtesy and emotion within the situation clearly shows she has psychological issues (maybe post natal depression) and wasn't fit to look after her child. It was her direct negligence of her child and psychological instability that caused the death of her child, not the game itself. It was never designed to facilitate the death of children, rather to provide the experience of looking after a child. The games intentions where positive, where as the mothers where not, however still people believe a story like this proves games have extremely negative effects on society and the people who play them, they believe if it wasn't for the games addictive attributes the mother would never have become so neglecting.
Once again a seemingly perfect way to blame games on a negative effect on society has fallen to other explanations, I do agree games present the risks above, but it’s the gamer who controls the game that controls themselves, not the game controlling them. This woman along with other clearly had issue before they started playing the game; it’s just the risks the game presents that highlighted her issues.
There are many other stories, even a documentary called “My World in Warcraft” documents addicted gamers who play the MMORPG “World of Warcraft” and their individual stories of how they lost all of their friends and family to online gaming addiction. Some cases the gamers lose their jobs, in some extreme cases they ended up in hospital from exhaustion. In fact one gamer even died from lack of food and drink. This is the extremities game addiction can cause, therefore they clearly exist. There are reports of over 3 Millions addicted gamers worldwide; it just goes to show the extent it can affect society. So yes, games can have a negative effect on society, not enough to be noticeable by everyone, but for those caught in the gaming addiction trap, it’s completely noticeable. It’s a sad but true statistic that highlights the risks of gaming. I still passionately believe that it is still down to the gamer. Yes life isn't as fun as a game, but you can still put the controller down and enjoy the little things in life, you just need to get up, go out and find them, which brings us to the positives’ of gaming on society.
It is ‘possible’ games can cause violence directly or indirectly. It is ‘possible’ that games can cause addiction and loosing track of reality, but it is ‘proven’ that games can bring together society and even educate. Comparing the possible to the proven, I would say gaming has a positive effect on society rather than negative.
NEXT POST: VIOLENCE IN GAMES: IGN VIOLENCE ARTICLE
VIOLENCE IN GAMES: GLADIATOR MATCHES (150-400 AD)
Probably the most famed and recognizable ancient blood sport of them all - Gladiator Matches. It's a concept that not only spawned a brilliant Oscar winning film, but countless modern digital video games on all platforms. It was a sport that's outlasted countless generations and thus, was a clear point of research from the very beginning.
While the general perception of 'Gladitor Events' is easily discussed, there is actually an interesting story behind them - they weren't always the blind massacre like entertainment events they are often seen as. It's quite an interesting find in this research, it's development over the years is quiet contrasting and highlights some interesting points on how violence in games can be influential, much like Venatio's transition from legitimate hunting, to blind blood sport fun with no real justification other than cultural entertainment.
Held in 'Empitheatrums' (a Colosseum), structures specifically built for this blood sport spectacle, Gladiator Matches were a huge event for the upper class that used the lower class as a money making violent entertainment source. Slaves, criminals, the lower class and many other unfortunate citizens were the 'players', forced into an arena to fight to the death, some times against animals (Venatio) as pre-events, but in this case, against other gladiators, also criminals, slaves or lower class citizens.
The image above pretty much sums the Gladiator Match up. These 'players' would be suited with various levels of armor (depending on their fame), be thrown into an arena, watched by many citizens as they fought to the death, all whilst spectators and government officials waged money on which gladiator would survivor. Survivors often became famous and thus, adorned the heavy armor to get the crowd going and money flowing through wagers.
Three things are notable when the research topic is considered - the game's nature itself, the 'classes of gladiators, and it's contrasting origins.
The common perception of the gladiator match (the most popular version), shares many similarities to games nowadays. The structure of a game is still, even thousands of years after other game research posts, remains the same. There is an environment, a conflict, players, and goal, and a reward for the winners. The interesting fact here, just like Venatio, is how the spectators are the real 'players'. The spectators, are entertained by the violence and death, which could highlight some interesting points about why we players find violence or gore so entertaining. I really need to do a post covering this psychological angle soon. It's starting to become a clear pattern that could define this entire research project.
The second find in my research of Gladiator Matches is how there were many 'classes' of Gladiators. The 'Horseman', the 'Heavy Weapons Fighter', the 'Fish', the 'Attacker', the 'Netman', the 'Pursuer' and any many more - each completely reflect today's game classes. There's one for the 'Tank', one for the 'Scout' and one for the Assasin.
It's not the fact that these classes are evident in games even then, it's the fact that these classes exist in games with violence. Each 'class' forces the player, in this case the spectators, to question whether their player can overcome the challenge and avoid a violent death. In Gladiatorial Matches, it's not just players being murdered that's the entertainment, its wondering how they will die, as these classes present possible different violent scenarios that although could cause the player to lose out, still provide entertainment - violence is the primary entertainment source of this game, the classes add to that possible violence and add dynamics to the game as a result. In this case, violence determines how the players 'play, whilst providing a source of entertainment.
If a game had you loosing bubbles when you were hit, there would be no tension, but if the player's mortality is threatened through violence, then there is tension. So is violence just a source of shallow entertainment or does it go deeper than that when games are concerned? It seems, that there is nothing like potential death to ramp up the entertainment, gore just adds to the entertainment - if you die through violence, you lose, but it was still entertaining, if you overcome it, you inflict violence, but you are rewarded. Do violent games re-enforce the idea that violence is acceptable, that violence is rewarding? Whether intentional or not, this famed sport when compared to similarly structured games nowadays definitely seems to point in that direction. Different dynamics through a game feature like classes seem to fuel this entertainment through violence by adding dynamics and tension.
The final interesting point relates to culture, not similar game structure or how violence is entertaining. It's the Gladiator Matches' origins and development. Originating as a 'Funeral Game', gladiator matches originally occurred at a highly respected citizen's funeral, the first recorded game occurring at Junios Brutus's funeral in 264 BC, they were a payment of respect to the deceased and their ancestors. But such exclusivity was soon lost in favor of the large spectator sport we all know. So what caused this sudden transition? Well, violence. The idea of violence is something that intrigues us now and then, maybe such a match allowed spectators to enjoy violence and accept it without experiencing it them self, after all, violence is punishable. And as Scott Roger's says "Games allows players to experience something they cannot in reality". Does this define why violence is in almost all games, especially in the Roman rule where violence is punishable by death? Does it tap into our animalistic nature, subdued by morality and society, only stimulated by these violent games?
My next post will undoubtedly cover a wide range of opinions of violence in games. How is it perceived? Why is it perceived as it is? Where is it? And where are it's effects seen? It will answers many questions that at this point, I need to answer. But it's clear to say, that the Gladiator Matches have solidified clear patterns in this research. This the research on ancient blood sports seems to be enough to identify the patterns, but without answering the questions these pose, I cannot draw a clear link between then and now when violence in games is concerned. So I 'may' put a cap to this ancient research and start to focus on the topics that provide the clear answers, not theories. Violence is culture and violence is entertainment. What hasn't been answered, is whether violence in games effects culture or whether culture effects violence in games. With this answered through research on animalistic instincts, psychology of violence and studies on the effects of violent games, I cannot generate any solid conclusion from this research.
NEXT POST: VIOLENCE IN GAMES: THE EFFECT OF VIOLENCE IN GAMES AND IT'S CONTROVERSIES
 |
| GLADIATOR MATCHES - 150 - 300 AD |
While the general perception of 'Gladitor Events' is easily discussed, there is actually an interesting story behind them - they weren't always the blind massacre like entertainment events they are often seen as. It's quite an interesting find in this research, it's development over the years is quiet contrasting and highlights some interesting points on how violence in games can be influential, much like Venatio's transition from legitimate hunting, to blind blood sport fun with no real justification other than cultural entertainment.
Held in 'Empitheatrums' (a Colosseum), structures specifically built for this blood sport spectacle, Gladiator Matches were a huge event for the upper class that used the lower class as a money making violent entertainment source. Slaves, criminals, the lower class and many other unfortunate citizens were the 'players', forced into an arena to fight to the death, some times against animals (Venatio) as pre-events, but in this case, against other gladiators, also criminals, slaves or lower class citizens.
The image above pretty much sums the Gladiator Match up. These 'players' would be suited with various levels of armor (depending on their fame), be thrown into an arena, watched by many citizens as they fought to the death, all whilst spectators and government officials waged money on which gladiator would survivor. Survivors often became famous and thus, adorned the heavy armor to get the crowd going and money flowing through wagers.
Three things are notable when the research topic is considered - the game's nature itself, the 'classes of gladiators, and it's contrasting origins.
The common perception of the gladiator match (the most popular version), shares many similarities to games nowadays. The structure of a game is still, even thousands of years after other game research posts, remains the same. There is an environment, a conflict, players, and goal, and a reward for the winners. The interesting fact here, just like Venatio, is how the spectators are the real 'players'. The spectators, are entertained by the violence and death, which could highlight some interesting points about why we players find violence or gore so entertaining. I really need to do a post covering this psychological angle soon. It's starting to become a clear pattern that could define this entire research project.
The second find in my research of Gladiator Matches is how there were many 'classes' of Gladiators. The 'Horseman', the 'Heavy Weapons Fighter', the 'Fish', the 'Attacker', the 'Netman', the 'Pursuer' and any many more - each completely reflect today's game classes. There's one for the 'Tank', one for the 'Scout' and one for the Assasin.
It's not the fact that these classes are evident in games even then, it's the fact that these classes exist in games with violence. Each 'class' forces the player, in this case the spectators, to question whether their player can overcome the challenge and avoid a violent death. In Gladiatorial Matches, it's not just players being murdered that's the entertainment, its wondering how they will die, as these classes present possible different violent scenarios that although could cause the player to lose out, still provide entertainment - violence is the primary entertainment source of this game, the classes add to that possible violence and add dynamics to the game as a result. In this case, violence determines how the players 'play, whilst providing a source of entertainment.
If a game had you loosing bubbles when you were hit, there would be no tension, but if the player's mortality is threatened through violence, then there is tension. So is violence just a source of shallow entertainment or does it go deeper than that when games are concerned? It seems, that there is nothing like potential death to ramp up the entertainment, gore just adds to the entertainment - if you die through violence, you lose, but it was still entertaining, if you overcome it, you inflict violence, but you are rewarded. Do violent games re-enforce the idea that violence is acceptable, that violence is rewarding? Whether intentional or not, this famed sport when compared to similarly structured games nowadays definitely seems to point in that direction. Different dynamics through a game feature like classes seem to fuel this entertainment through violence by adding dynamics and tension.
The final interesting point relates to culture, not similar game structure or how violence is entertaining. It's the Gladiator Matches' origins and development. Originating as a 'Funeral Game', gladiator matches originally occurred at a highly respected citizen's funeral, the first recorded game occurring at Junios Brutus's funeral in 264 BC, they were a payment of respect to the deceased and their ancestors. But such exclusivity was soon lost in favor of the large spectator sport we all know. So what caused this sudden transition? Well, violence. The idea of violence is something that intrigues us now and then, maybe such a match allowed spectators to enjoy violence and accept it without experiencing it them self, after all, violence is punishable. And as Scott Roger's says "Games allows players to experience something they cannot in reality". Does this define why violence is in almost all games, especially in the Roman rule where violence is punishable by death? Does it tap into our animalistic nature, subdued by morality and society, only stimulated by these violent games?
My next post will undoubtedly cover a wide range of opinions of violence in games. How is it perceived? Why is it perceived as it is? Where is it? And where are it's effects seen? It will answers many questions that at this point, I need to answer. But it's clear to say, that the Gladiator Matches have solidified clear patterns in this research. This the research on ancient blood sports seems to be enough to identify the patterns, but without answering the questions these pose, I cannot draw a clear link between then and now when violence in games is concerned. So I 'may' put a cap to this ancient research and start to focus on the topics that provide the clear answers, not theories. Violence is culture and violence is entertainment. What hasn't been answered, is whether violence in games effects culture or whether culture effects violence in games. With this answered through research on animalistic instincts, psychology of violence and studies on the effects of violent games, I cannot generate any solid conclusion from this research.
GLADIATOR RESEARCH LINKS
NEXT POST: VIOLENCE IN GAMES: THE EFFECT OF VIOLENCE IN GAMES AND IT'S CONTROVERSIES
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)